Exploring the social determinants of mental health service use using intersectionality theory and CART analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fewer than half of individuals with a mental disorder seek formal care in a given year. Much research has been conducted on the factors that influence service use in this population, but the methods generally used cannot easily identify the complex interactions that are thought to exist. In this paper, we examine predictors of subsequent service use among respondents to a population health survey who met criteria for a past-year mood, anxiety or substance-related disorder. METHODS: To determine service use, we use an administrative database including all physician consultations in the period of interest. To identify predictors, we use classification tree (CART) analysis, a data mining technique with the ability to identify unsuspected interactions. We compare results to those from logistic regression models. RESULTS: We identify 1213 individuals with past-year disorder. In the year after the survey, 24% (n=312) of these had a mental health-related physician consultation. Logistic regression revealed that age, sex and marital status predicted service use. CART analysis yielded a set of rules based on age, sex, marital status and income adequacy, with marital status playing a role among men and by income adequacy important among women. CART analysis proved moderately effective overall, with agreement of 60%, sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 53%. CONCLUSION: Results highlight the potential of data-mining techniques to uncover complex interactions, and offer support to the view that the intersection of multiple statuses influence health and behaviour in ways that are difficult to identify with conventional statistics. The disadvantages of these methods are also discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".